Madras High Court
D.Jayaseelan vs The Secretary To Government on 13 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025
D.Jayaseelan ... Appellant /
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Technical Education,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 025. ... Respondents /
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow this
Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.9449 of 2015
dated 09.03.2022.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar
Special Government Pleader
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
Heard both sides.
2.Thiru.D.Jayaseelan was appointed as Workshop Instructor in a
Government Polytechnic College in the year 1973. He was promoted as
Instructor (Mechanical) in the year 1976. Thereafter, he was upgraded to the
post of Lecturer, Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department on 28.09.1979,
28.09.1989 and 28.09.1999 respectively as per G.O(Ms)No.337 Higher
Education (C2) Department dated 27.08.2009. Subsequently, he served as
Principal in-charge from 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2008 at Alagappa Polytechnic
College, Karaikudi and retired from service on 31.05.2008.
3.The teachers working in aided and Government Polytechnic Colleges
in Tamil Nadu had been agitating for improvement of their service conditions
and conferment of certain monetary benefits. Acceding to their request, the
Government issued G.O(Ms)No.337 Higher Education (C2) Department dated
27.08.2009. Paragraph 5 of the said GO reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
“5. bjhHpy; El;gf; fy;tp Mizahpd; fUj;JUtpid muR
ftdKld; ghprPyid bra;jJ. muR kw;Wk; muR cjtp bgWk;
ghypblf;dpf; fy;Yhhpfspy; gzpg[hpa[k; tphpt[iuahsh;fSf;F
(1) gj;J tUlq;fs; gzpKoj;j tphpt[iuahsh;fSf;F>
nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l KJepiy tphpt[iuahsh;fshf gzpnkk;ghL
kw;Wk; ,jpypUe;J gj;J tUlq;fs; gzp Koj;jth;fSf;F
nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l Jiwj;jiytuhf gzpnkk;ghL tHq;fyhk; vdt[k;>
(2) muR Miz (epiy)vz;.627> fy;tp> ehs;
07.05.1990 - ,y; nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l tphpt[iuahsh; gjtpapy;
gzpg[hpe;j fhyj;jpid Kiwahd gzpf;fhykhff; fUjp> KJepiy
tphpt[iuahsuhf gzpnkk;ghL tHq;ff; fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf;
bfhz;Ls;sJ nghd;W jw;nghJ KJepiy tphpt[iuahsh;fshfg;
gzpg[hpgth;fs; mth;fs; nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l KJepiy
tphpt[iuahsh;fshfg; gzpg[hpe;j fhyj;jpida[k; fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf;
bfhz;L mth;fSf;F nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l Jiwj;jiytuhf
gzpnkk;ghL tHq;fyhk; vdt[k;> nkYk;
(3) ,e;j gzpnkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpid murhiz
btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy; eilKiwg;gLj;jyhk; vdt[k;
Kot[ bra;J muR mt;thnw MizapLfpwJ.”
This was followed by yet another GO, namely, G.O(Ms)No.4 Higher Education
Department dated 12.01.2010. Paragraph 3 of the said GO reads as follows:
“3. jkpH;ehL muR ghypblf;dpf; fy;Yhhp Mrphpah;fs;
rq;fk; kw;Wk; muR cjtp bgWk; ghypblf;dpf; fy;Yhhp
Mrphpah;fs; rq;fq;fspd; Tl;likg;g[ tpLj;j ntz;Lnfhspid
ed;F ghprPypj;J nkny Kjypy; gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy;
tHq;fg;gl;Ls;s gzpnkk;ghl;L Mizia Mrphpah;fs; gj;J
Mz;Lfs; gzp Koj;j ehspy; ,Ue;J gzpnkk;ghl;ila[k;>
me;ehspy; ,Ue;J fUj;jpayhf (Notional) eph;zapj;Jk;>
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
gzg;gaid (monetary benefit) mt;turhiz btspaplg;gl;l
ehspy; ,Ue;Jk; tHq;fyhk; vdf; fUjp mt;thnw muR
MizapLfpwJ.”
4.The question arose as to whether these GOs providing for periodical
upgradation can be made applicable to the retired teachers also. In this regard,
a clarificatory letter was issued vide Letter No.234 dated 07.12.2012.
Paragraph 4 of the said letter reads as follows:
“4.murhiz (epiy) vz;.1081> fy;tp> ehs; 19.8.89-y;
tHq;fg;gl;l gzpnkk;ghl;od; nghJ> mjhtJ 19.8.89 md;Wk;
mjw;F gpd;dUk; gzpapypUe;jth;fSf;F murhiz (epiy) vz;.
337> cah;fy;tpj;Jiw> ehs; 27.8.09 kw;Wk; murhiz (epiy)
vz;.4> cah;fy;tpj;Jiw> ehs; 12.01.2010-y; btspaplg;gl;Ls;s
gzpnkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lk; Fwpj;j Mizfis> gzpnkk;ghl;Lf;F
fUj;jpayhf gpd;gw;wp> Xa;t{jpa gyd;fis kl;Lk; ,f;fojk;
btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy; tHq;fyhk; vd bjhptpj;Jf;
bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.”
5.The demand made by Thiru.D.Jayaseelan was that this clarification
should be retrospectively applied with effect from G.O(Ms)No.337 Higher
Education (C2) Department dated 27.08.2009. His request was not accepted.
Hence he filed W.P(MD)No.9449 of 2015. During the pendency of the Writ
Petition, he passed away and his wife came on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
6.The learned single Judge rejected the said demand vide order dated
09.03.2022. Challenging the same, this intra-court appeal came to be filed.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set
out in the grounds of Appeal and called upon us to allow this Writ Appeal.
8.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the
impugned order of the learned single Judge is well reasoned and that it does not
call for interference.
9.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
10.As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, both G.O(Ms)No.
337 Higher Education (C2) Department dated 27.08.2009 and G.O(Ms)No.4
Higher Education Department dated 12.01.2010 are unambiguous. On a plain
reading of the said GOs, one can conclude that it was applicable only to serving
teachers. Those GOs by no stretch of imagination could have been extended to
benefit the retired teachers. Only by virtue of Letter No.234 dated 07.12.2012,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
the benefit was extended to retired teachers also. This impugned Letter No.234
dated 07.12.2012 is a beneficial one. It is more in the nature of concession.
11.The learned single Judge had observed as follows:
“6. On perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.337, G.O.Ms.No.4 and
the clarification Letter, dated 07.1.2.2012, it is seen in the G.O.
MS. No. 337, an upgrading Scheme was introduced in the said
Government Order. Since certain representations were
submitted before the Government, the Government has clarified
through G.O.Ms.No.4 to grant the benefits notionally from the
completion of 10 years and the monetary benefits from the date
of the G.O. Ms. No. 337. Since both the Government Orders are
not covering the persons who have already retired prior to the
issuance of G.O.Ms.No.337, a clarification was sought and the
Government has issued the clarification vide letter dated
07.12.2012. Whenever, any Scheme is introduced, the persons
who are serving as on the date of the Government Order are
eligible to the benefits. The Government has every power to
grant the monetary benefits based on the financial status of the
Government and fix a cut off date for issuance of monetary
benefits. This is purely a policy decision of the Government. In
the impugned, it has been stated as under.
“4. gzpNkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpd;gbahd gzg;ad;fs;
murhiz ntspaplg;glk; ehspypUe;J kl;LNk
toq;fg;gLk;; vd;gjhy;> gzpNkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
Fwpj;j Mizfis> gzpNkk;ghl;Lf;Fj; jFjp
ngw;W 27.08.2009-f;F Kd;dh; gzp Xa;T ngw;w
Mrphpah;fSf;F fUj;jpayhf gpd;gw;wp Xa;Tjpa
gyd;fis kl;Lk; Miz ntspaplg;gLk; ehs;
(07.12.2012) Kjy; toq;fyhk; vd ghh;it 1-y;
fhZk; fbjj;jpy; Miz ntspaplg;gl;lJ. VdNt
gzpNkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpd;gbahd gzg;gaid
27.08.2009f;F Kd;dh; gzp Xa;T ngw;w
Mrphpah;fSf;F 27.08.2009 Kjy; toq;FtJ
njhlh;ghd jq;fsJ Nfhhpf;ifia Vw;f ,ayhJ
vd;W njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.”
7. In the impugned order, it has been stated that for any
upgradation Scheme, the monetary benefits would be eligible
from the date of issuance of the Government Order. In
G.O.Ms.No.337, the Government has not dealt with the persons
who have retired prior to the issuance of Government Order.
When representations were submitted to grant the same benefits
for the persons who retired prior to 27.08.2009, the
Government has issued the impugned communication, dated
07.12.2012, granting the benefits from the date of issuance of
the letter. Infact the Government has taken the period prior to
27.08.2009 notionally and has granted benefits. There is no
infirmity in the said clarification.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the petitioner has not made out any case and any
discrimination as alleged in this writ petition. The petitioner
submitted that only the petitioner has been left out and other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
persons who have been retired along with the petitioner prior
to 27.08.2009 granted the monetary benefits. But the petitioner
has not placed any such evidence before this Court. If the
petitioner has submitted any such evidence along with the
representation, then the respondents may consider the same.”
12.We are of the view that the learned single Judge adopted the right
approach to repel the appellant's challenge. Interference with the said
impugned order is not warranted.
13.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
13.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
MGA
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Technical Education,
Guindy,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
Chennai – 600 025.
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
13.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:50 pm )
